You would think that people with a history of being discriminated against in the workplace might give those whom they resemble a break. But a growing body of research confirms exactly the opposite: women are just as likely as men to show sexism toward women in hiring practices, salaries and professional mentorship. One study even found that people of both genders would forgo thousands of dollars in salary to have a male boss.

Overt displays of sexism of the bottom-pinching variety are largely passé in the American workplace. What remains, unfortunately, is a set of subtler and more ingrained cognitive biases deeply rooted in our evolutionary and cultural past. Getting rid of them will require an honest reckoning with the inalienable fact that humans are primed to make implicit errors in perception and even good people who actively eschew bias may nonetheless harbor subtle yet damaging stereotypes of which they are unaware.

In one of the latest studies, a psychology experiment published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, senior science faculty across the U.S. were presented with identical résumés for a lab-manager job (a position that can often lead to graduate study) that differed only in the gender of the hypothetical applicant. The résumé raters were statistically more likely to rate the male candidate higher on competence and hirability and were also more likely to offer the male candidate a bigger salary and greater professional mentorship. By contrast, the hypothetical female applicants were rated more likable but less hirable. Female scientists were just as likely to favor male candidates as potential hires as male scientists were.

There are countless examples of bias against women by both sexes in nonscience fields, including, famously, the increase in women who were hired for orchestras when musicians auditioned behind a blind screen. It’s hard to imagine why this kind of cognitive bias persists in the 21st century, especially when the achievement gaps between males and females are closing rapidly and women now comprise the majority of college and graduate students nationwide.

But this only seems puzzling because we tend to think that bias is an evil word, tainted with ugly -isms and the deliberate diminishing of certain kinds of people. Current research is showing that all human beings have unconscious cognitive biases — what Harvard professor Mahzarin Banaji calls “mind bugs.” These biases may have been adaptive thousands of years ago, when people lived in small, homogeneous communities and in-group favoritism or snap judgments might have made the difference between life or death. But they are problematic in our global 21st century world.

Those cognitive shortcuts gave us the ability to make rapid decisions. And sometimes using them makes sense: murders are overwhelmingly more likely to be committed by young men than elderly grandmothers. The problem is that our minds are also capable of making profound errors that, in the case of Trayvon Martin, can even cost lives.

The pervasiveness of cognitive bias is depressing. It’s more palatable to think of sexism or racism or ageism as a symptom of a few rotten apples than as a fundamental human trait. But if we’re all doing it, even to ourselves, how on earth can we move beyond the stereotypes? If we want to eliminate the perception that women are less competent than men for certain jobs held by both sexes, it’s not enough to hire more women for traditionally male-dominated jobs.

There are two ways to respond to pervasive, often unconscious bias. First, we could develop better metrics for evaluating human beings that can help reduce human error. Yes, sophisticated algorithims for decisionmaking can be problematic. The use of technical data to make human decisions may come at a moral or social cost that isn’t worth paying. (Mandatory sentencing laws are one such example.) Flying on autopilot may indeed reduce accidents, but few people want to board a flight with an empty cockpit.

We must also be more intentional about recognizing unconscious stereotypes. People who score high in cognitive bias on online tests measuring implicit associations — the tendency to pair negative words with black people more quickly than with white people, for example — often express anger, shame and denial at the findings, particularly when they are 180 degrees at odds with their stated beliefs. (This author was shocked to discover an unconscious bias favoring old people, despite a lifetime of working with children and young adults!) Unfortunately, these defensive emotions are unlikely to rise to the surface, making it hard to learn from the findings.

A more fundamental problem is that cognitive bias is rooted not only in our primitive past but also in our contemporary culture. We can’t be surprised by unconscious stereotypes about women when we still embrace a culture suffused with highly sexualized, frivolous and demeaning portrayals of women in everything from popular movies to recent congressional debates.

Biases don’t appear out of thin air; they can diminish and even disappear over time. No serious person thinks anymore that women’s brains are incapable of complex thoughts, a once commonplace notion accepted even by Darwin. In other words, there’s hope that we can change. We may not eradicate the mind bugs, but we can control them until, like roaches, they flee when we turn on the lights.

Irony.. While I am tempted to "state my case" about my personal experiences and observations, and argue with some of the commenters, it will be an exercise in futility. The human brain kicks out information it doesn't LIKE, so whoever reads this will either ALREADY agree with me or NOT agree, and that's all that will happen, just agreeing or arguing. Very few humans can actually learn new information, especially regarding bias, because the ego protects biased perception like a mother wolf protects her young.

If I talk about my experiences in grade school, in my neighborhood, in High School, at Yale, in my family, jobs, music career, other states, other people I knew, my contracting business, even abuse and assault, it STILL would not penetrate the biased, (most humans), because those biases serve to protect their identity and sense of who and what they are. They CAN'T learn new information that doesn't fit in with what they already believe, because that would mean everything connected to it isn't right or true, and that usually means they would have to let go of ego security and gratification.

Finally, more people like you have access to writing about the reality of the social dynamics in so many Western cultures, much of which is kept hidden and rationalized when it does get exposed. Excellent article, sharing.

Men are also victim in this crisis. When you look at places where the economical crisis hits the most, it are places where men work. Woman mostly work for gov. and banks. That's mostly a save place.. where people ain't getting fired. The house market that's where people are getting fired. Next thing is this demand of woman .. Daily Mail wrote. Woman demand men to make more money.

ISLAMABAD: Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik on Monday told the National Assembly session that as many as 108 people became victim to targeted killings in Karachi, Geo News reported.Malik through a written reply during point of order told the house that those who had been killed in Karachi include workers of MQM, ANP, Jamat-e-Islami, People’s Aman Committee, PPP, Sunni Tehreek. Besides, people belonging to Shia sect also became victim of the targeted killings.He said that 124 suspects involved in targeted killings were also arrested in the city.MQM’s Wasim Akhtar urged the army leadership to look into the matter as certain elements were destroying the country.He said that Supreme Court orders regarding action against Taliban were not being implemented.Maulana Attaur Rehman demanded compensation for the families of the seminary students who had been killed in a firing incident in the city.Sahibzada Fazl Karim demanded action against Taliban in Karachi and said that Sohrab Goth area of the city had become epicenter of criminal activities.

KARACHI: The echoes of gun shots did not die down even on Monday in the provincial capital, as eight more people lost their lives in various incidents of violence, pushing the death toll in three days to 44, Geo News reported.Unknown armed men opened fire near Yousuf Plaza when Labbaik Ya Rasool Allah rally marched from one direction while from the opposite side a funeral procession made its way to the graveyard. Four people were injured as marchers panicked and started running in all directions for safety. Some sustained bullet wounds while others received different injuries in the stampede.Later, enraged people set three vehicles on fire.Meanwhile, a man who sustained bullet wounds at Dau Minute Chowrangi, Surjani Town, expired at a hospital while another such victim who was injured in firing in Ancholi on Sunday also breathed his last at a medical facility today.Police recovered a dead body of an unidentified youth from Orangi Town Number 11.5. To police, it appeared that he was first kidnapped and later killed by the abductors.An individual who had suffered gun shot wounds at Bangla Bazar in Orangi Town succumbed to his injuries while another was killed by unknown armed men in Manghopir.One Dr. Nisar was shot outside a clinic in Lee Market located in the Lyari area.Earlier, two people lost their lives after coming under fire attack in Memon Goth. Police said personal enmity could be the cause of this incident.

WASHINGTON: New details emerged on Sunday about the extramarital affair that abruptly ended the career of CIA chief David Petraeus, including the identity of a second woman whose complaints about harassing emails from the woman with whom he had the relationship, Paula Broadwell, prompted an FBI investigation.A person familiar with the investigation identified the second woman as Jill Kelley, a long-time friend of the Petraeus family and a Tampa, Florida volunteer social liaison with military families at MacDill Air Force Base.Kelley went to the FBI after receiving threatening emails that eventually were traced to Broadwell, law enforcement and security officials have said, prompting an investigation that turned up evidence that Petraeus and Broadwell were having an extramarital affair."We and our family have been friends with General Petraeus and his family for over five years. We respect his and his family's privacy and want the same for us and our three children," Kelley said in a statement obtained by ABC News.Broadwell has not been available for comment and both the FBI and CIA have declined public comment on the matter.Petraeus has made no public comment since he announced his resignation on Friday.The affair has raised questions about whether U.S. national security was ever at risk and the timing of law enforcement and intelligence officials' revelation of the matter to the White House, as well as who knew about the investigation before last week's presidential election.Meanwhile, a former spokesman for Petraeus during his time as an Army general has said the affair with Broadwell, an Army reserve officer who co-authored a glowing biography of him, began after Petraeus retired from the Army in August 2011 to lead the spy agency and ended four months ago by mutual consent.Retired Colonel Steven Boylan, who was Petraeus' spokesman in Iraq and has spoken to the general since he resigned at the CIA, downplayed the question of whether U.S. security had been at risk. He said Petraeus never gave Broadwell classified information or communicated with her via his government email."My understanding is that she was only at the CIA twice. And at no time, based on conversations with him, did he provide her classified information, nor did she receive anything from him in that manner," Boylan said in an interview."My understanding is that they mutually determined that it was time to end it," he said, adding that Petraeus "knows he made a huge mistake" and is now trying to focus on his family. "It wasn't right. And it was done. That was about four months ago."A law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Petraeus was first interviewed in connection with the FBI investigation during the week of October 28, about a week after Broadwell was questioned. The FBI informed Petraeus' boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, in the early evening of Election Day, November 6.Senior U.S. officials said Clapper then informed the White House's National Security Council staff of the issue and Petraeus' intention to resign on Wednesday, the morning after President Barack Obama was re-elected to a second four-year term. Obama was informed later that day, they said."EXTREMELY POOR JUDGMENT"Petraeus, a widely admired soldier-scholar credited with turning around the U.S. war in Iraq and who led NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan, announced his resignation in a letter to the CIA workforce on Friday, acknowledging "extremely poor judgment" in having an extramarital affair.The person familiar with the investigation said Kelley initially approached a Florida field office of the FBI - not FBI headquarters - with a complaint of cyber-harassment. She had received numerous intimidating emails from a handful of different, opaque pseudonymous addresses.The nature of the emails, according to the source, who was briefed on their contents, was "I know what you're doing" and similar suggestions that someone was onto Kelley. There was no explicit threat of violence.Upon tracing them, the FBI found out that Paula Broadwell was behind them, this source said. They also found correspondence between Broadwell and Petraeus leading to the revelation of an affair between them.High-level Justice Department officials were informed in late summer 2012 of an ongoing investigation involving Petraeus, according to a law enforcement official. This source would not name the Justice officials or say whether Attorney General Eric Holder was among them.The Justice Department followed long-standing policy by not revealing the investigation to anyone outside the department, such as White House or congressional aides, this official said. It would be inappropriate and unfair to do so, and it might jeopardize any potential prosecution, the official added.As the investigation moved into the fall, the focus was potential cyber-harassment by one woman against another woman.Petraeus was thought of by investigators as a potential witness or party to the investigation, but he was never a target of investigators. Prosecutors considered whether the conduct in question constituted a crime of cyber-harassment under the law.During their interviews with investigators, Broadwell and Petraeus both admitted to the affair, the official said. After the interviews, prosecutors decided they likely would not bring charges, based on the available evidence.Another U.S. government official said the FBI investigation into the emails was fairly straightforward and did not require obtaining court orders to monitor the email accounts of those involved, including the personal email account of Petraeus. Rather, the official said, investigators reviewed the emails that Kelley had brought to their attention."There wasn't a court order," the government official said, adding that that action would have been a last resort when other avenues had been exhausted.A source close to the Petraeus family confirmed that Kelley, who is 37 according to published reports, and her husband, Scott Kelley, a Tampa cancer surgeon, became friends with Petraeus when he was stationed at MacDill from 2008 until 2010 as commander of the U.S. military's Central Command, which runs operations in the Middle East and South Asia.The Kelleys later visited the Petraeuses in Washington while on a trip to visit relatives.The Kelleys did not answer phone calls to the number listed for the family's mansion-style home on Tampa's exclusive Bayshore Boulevard, close to the military base.The Kelleys made the VIP guest list at military functions at MacDill and also hosted Petraeus and his wife at their home in 2010, for the city's annual Gasparilla pirate parade, according to a report at the time in the Tampa Bay Times. (Reuters)Today's NewspaperTop story NationalWorld BusinessSports KarachiLahore IslamabadPeshawar EditorialOpinion Newspost

KarachiSeveral political leaders and civil society activists have termed the demise of human rights activist and former law minister Syed Iqbal Haider as a great loss for the nation.Haider, a senior advocate of the apex court, had remained also the co-chairperson and secretary general of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP). He was an active campaigner for peace in South Asia.Senior politician Mairaj Mohammad Khan has paid tributes to Haider’s struggle during the days of General Ziaul Haq’s martial law.Haider was the secretary general of Khan’s now defunct Qaumi Mahaz-e-Azadi before joining the Pakistan People’s Party in 1982. Khan said Haider had played a crucial role against Zia’s martial law. “He showed a lot of courage and determination during those dark days and fought for the supremacy of the constitution and the restoration of democracy,” he said. “Once he quit the Pakistan People’s Party, he carried the banner of human rights and fought valiantly for the oppressed and the downtrodden. He was also a fearless voice against religious extremism and intolerance and promoted secular values at all levels.”PPC and PILERPakistan Peace Coalition (PPC) Secretary General BM Kutty and Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER) Executive Director Karamat Ali have expressed their sorrow over Haider’s demise.In a joint statement, they said Haider’s death was a setback for the human rights movements in the country.The two civil society activists said Haider was responsible for the freedom of hundreds of Indian fishermen men languishing in Pakistani jails as well as our fishermen locked up across the border.He campaigned for the rights of the people of Balochistan and fought many human rights cases in the higher courts.They recalled that Haider had also vigorously worked on honour killing, bonded labour and missing person cases. He fought against the military dictatorship of General Ziaul Haq and played an active role in the Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD) as its founding member.He was put behind the bars by the military administration during the 80s. Haider had also served as a senator and the attorney general of Pakistan.Kutty and Ali eulogised Haider’s efforts for peace between Pakistan and India. The late peace activist had received the fourth Mother Teresa Memorial Award for Social Justice from the Global Harmony Foundation of India in 2010.MQMMuttahida Qaumi Movement chief Altaf Hussain has expressed his deep sense of grief and sorrow over Haider’s death.Paying rich tributes to Haider for his services, Hussain said the late human rights campaigner was a true leader who fought for the rights of the poor and deprived people. “Mr Haider had rendered meritorious services in the fields of politics, law and human rights and served the humanity. He worked day and night for eliminating extremism from the country and promoting religious and sectarian harmony.”Hussain said it was hard to believe that Haider was no more among us. “He has passed away, but he will always live in our thoughts and memories. He was like an elder brother to me.” The MQM chief appealed to the people of Pakistan to pray for the departed soul. He also phoned Haider’s wife and brother-in-law to offer his condolences.ANPThe Awami National Party Sindh chief has also expressed grief over Haider’s demise.In a statement issued by the Bacha Khan Markaz, ANP Sindh President Senator Shahi Syed has praised the services of the late human rights activist for the restoration of democracy in the country. “Iqbal Haider was among those who did not surrender to dictators, and that is why he was sent to jail on a number of occasions.”Syed said Haider was a man of principles and set a good example by following them throughout his life. “As the co-chairman of the HRCP, he played a vital role. Even when his health did not allow him to actively advocate for people’s rights, he issued statements for the cause.” Syed said politicians and public figures should follow in Haider’s footsteps.Provincial ministersSindh ministers Sharjeel Imam Memon, Pir Mazharul Haq, Jam Mehtab Hussain Dahar and Special Assistant to the Chief Minister Sharmila Farooqui have expressed their deep sorrow over Haider’s death.In separate condolence messages, they said Haider was a great politician and his services for the country and human rights would be remembered for a long time.

ISLAMABAD: Female political activists from all over the country have protested against the poor treatment of American ruling party’s NGO, National Democratic Institute (NDI), which receives millions of dollars.The women at the electoral seminar in Islamabad on Sunday complained that they were provided stay in third-rate hotel and several women were kept in one room like sheep and cattle. They said they were also not provided any protection.The women delegation went to Mushahid Hussain Sayed to record their complaint. According to sources, the NDI conducted an electoral workshop for women in Islamabad. The workshop will continue for five days.Over 60 women activists belonging to PPP, PML-N, PML-Q, NPP, MQM and other political parties attended the seminar.

I'm a sexual minority dismayed by the occasional bigotry perpetrated against me by members of other miniorities. How can people who are oppressed and/or who know full-well that their ancestors were horrible oppressed, abused, etc., possibly not embrace solidarity with another minority, sexual, racial, ethinic, whatever? It makes no sense and, it seems, can only be classified as hypocracy. In just one example of this is the fact that it is brazen and indefensible discrimination against gay people to not permit them to enjoy the same governmental benefits from being married as a straight couple. And yet I know of other members of other minorities that, in my opinion, inexplicably are against gay marriage. That's like, for example, being for interracial marriage, but vehemently against gay marriage. It's simply absurd.

In fact I 've never experienced any discrimination ,but as I think a gentle hint of competition ,especially between women ,can be felt in any society.Even sisters may have bias against each other, because it's a part of the female nature, as like an instinct. Women prefer men because of the natural selection which dectates to us how to behave in order to proliferate. There's no pill to cure . Someone can only name it "discrimination " or "bias" , but I call such a phenomenon a kind of natural process. However, maybe the evolution goes on and after gaining a victory over the wild nature humanity will capture its inner nature.

The answer is simple. Women aren't perfect. Women are not the opposite of men. Women are not better or worse than men. Women are humans just like men are. That's why when I have a chance or my opinion is welcomed, I always make it a point that I don't think "male behavior" is the enemy to women, but rahter, human behavior. What I mean is, women can't fix bias toward women and men cannot fix bias toward women. It has to be a concious effort of each individual.

This is very interesting stuff, precisely because people can't control their bias since they are not conscious of the reasons for their bias. The evolutionary brain is not accessible by thinking, only by emotion. So you feel one way but don't really know why.

I think the writer here is in error to suppose that bias served some function in pre-historic times and has survived in us until now. Bias is critical in blocking out noise. Especially in today's society, the inability to filter out most of the information reaching us would leave almost all of us unable to function at even a basic level. The problem with bias is that the filter is set too high, important information is being blocked, and we end up choosing trusted and comfortable, rather than productive and creative.

You don't want to turn off the bias filters as they promote efficiency, although at a price. What you need is to learn to doubt the filters so that alternatives can be given consideration. True objectivity is neither attainable nor desirable, else you would have no sustainable framework for living, and every action would require primacy of your conscious brain. You would die of exhaustion or go mad.

One of the major reasons that I dropped out of the work force over a decade ago now, when I had accumulated enough in savings and investments to make it to retirement, was my extreme distaste for office politics. I could do my job very well and I liked the work, but I always lost badly in the office political battles.

One thing that always amazed me was that, over the couple of decades or so that I worked in offices, I had so many women co-workers who seemed to actually love the office political fights, and practically always won them. Yet women keep claiming to be the victims of bias in the work place. Like Talendria below, of the women I worked with, not once in my career did I notice any discrimination against them. On the contrary, the women were always treated preferentially over us men.

Now I find it funny that a very popular book recently published is titled 'The End of Men And the Rise of Women' and yet there are still articles coming out like this one.

I'm just glad that now I can sit back and relax and enjoy living on the income from my stocks that I own of the companies where women work to produce the goods and services that bring in the revenue for those companies that is paid to me in dividends and cap gains. As I play on the golf course while they work, I'm not feeling very ended, despite always losing all those office political battles all those years.;-)

I have experienced discrimination by other women because I'm single and I don't look like them...for some strange reason they believe themselves to be better looking than average. Also, strange because they're in a relationship they believe they're more desirable.

I find them amusing #1 We all make the same dollar per hour; #2 They have the same struggles controlling their weight as everyone else; #3 I own my own home and enjoy the same privileges that they enjoy "because" they have a two income household.

From a distant I've observed that "most" woman do behave as mentioned above - BUT NOT ALL.

As a strong woman who is very aware of the power of my own sexuality it's important to me to use my brain everyday rather than my sexuality to get that raise or door opened for me, etc - sometimes it's like walking a tightrope.

Yes, in many instances I DO understand why a woman would prefer having a "male" boss rather than a "female"

I personally am very proud to be a woman, but not so proud of the typical behavior that "most" women project everyday of their lives.

Lastly, I believe that "most" of us women are either a little or very CRAZY due to our bizarre actions - sex with the married boss, keeping the household in an uproar by throwing tantrums, choosing a bad relationship over our lifelong friends, etc. The list just goes on an on...

Only a few women recognize "their" tendency to negatively manipulate others which invariably leads to self destruction and demise.

I have experienced discrimination by other women because I'm single and I don't look like them...for some strange reason they believe themselves to be better looking than average. Also, strange because they're in a relationship they believe they're more desirable.

I find them amusing #1 We all make the same dollar per hour; #2 They have the same struggles controlling their weight as everyone else; #3 I own my own home and enjoy the same privileges that they enjoy "because" they have a two income household.

From a distant I've observed that "most" woman do behave as mentioned above - BUT NOT ALL.

As a strong woman who is very aware of the power of my own sexuality it's important to me to use my brain everyday rather than my sexuality to get that raise or door opened for me, etc - sometimes it's like walking a tightrope.

Yes, in many instances I DO understand why a woman would prefer having a "male" boss rather than a "female"

I personally am very proud to be a woman, but not so proud of the typical behavior that "most" women project everyday of their lives.

Lastly, I believe that "most" of us women are either a little or very CRAZY due to our bizarre actions - sex with the married boss, keeping the household in an uproar by throwing tantrums, choosing a bad relationship over our lifelong friends, etc. The list just goes on an on...

Only a few women recognize "their" tendency to negatively manipulate others which invariably leads to self destruction and demise.

I worked for a well-known software company (sales division) where I was not only promoted over my male working partner, but given a raise too. My colleague was great at sales but a complete doofus when it came to technology (to this day, this guy does not own a computer, cell phone, or other tech or mobile device). My supervisor knew I was reliable, competent, and excellent at what I did.

If a woman has the ability, she should not be afraid to shine, she will get far, make better money, and be able to stand on equal ground with men at work.

You spent almost the entire article cautioning against, and providing advice for, cultural and evolutionary bias. Then, in the last paragraph, you destroyed your entire premise by stating "Biases don't appear out of thin air...". If that is true (which I suspect it is), then the rest of your argument makes no sense.

more bias in discussions of bias. shall i hold my breath waiting for pseudo liberal women like this writer to scold women for their biases against men? or finally assign responsibility for the failures and hypocrisy of the women's movement to feminist analysis? or revise the 'all about power and control' mantra as explanation for all misbehavior in the male population if it doesn't explain women's sexism?

Women see each other as competition. While men do the same under some circumstances, it has been shown that men are better at compartmentalizing that sort of thing, leaving competition outside of the office... mostly.

Both my Mormon parents voted against the Equal Rights Amendment when I was a single mom. I asked my mother why - don't remember the conversation except that she said Phyllis Schlafley was her idol. Women's roles have changed somewhat, but as long as women feel they must fight for the favor of men, they will step on other women. //Jean Clelland-Morin

Women can be extremely vicious if they feel threatened by a competitor; they are also socially, rather than physically, aggressive when dealing with other women. Women that have clawed their way to the top, in many cases, have suffered so much humiliation along the way; that they pull the lifeboat up behind them, rather that realizing that no group in history has been more discriminated against and oppressed than women have. Women of all colors, women of all faiths, women of all tribes; we all have one thing in common: every last one of us knows how it feels to get the shaft. These actions spring from fear and insecurity, and many are hard wired to compete, rather than cooperate; so you really have to be an extraordinary person to rise above it.

The fear also comes from the large population of female homewreckers out there who will try to totally rip you off of everything: man, house, money, kids, career; everything. These chicks will pick you clean like a vulture.

Goes back to the days when men had multiple wives. you would think that all the women would gang up on the husband to get what they want.

didn’t happen. instead they competed with each other for the husbands attention, so one of them got what they wanted.

all women see other women as competition...

males have Camaraderie, a social system for getting them to work together against a common enemy.. no enemy and they compete against each other just the same. but give them a common enemy. they become statistically more generous with each other and work better as a team.

Its what kept “tribes” alive, but it’s also the reason why we start wars.. we need an enemy...

Why companies originally grew so large, us versus them....

don’t think it’s as strong in women. didn’t help in the harem.... but super model narcissism sure helped..

its funny how my female boss just rolls her eyes and says “men” whenever we do anything wrong. She comes down like a ton of bricks on the females doing the same...

you see a similar thing with modern sex workers.. the pecking order is who has the better clients, not anything else...

I'm always suspicious of these bias articles, because not once in my career did I experience discrimination. I got promoted ahead of men on several occasions, and I had the same degree of success in managing and retaining men as I did with women. I never got stuck making the coffee either.

Unfortunately, some of the hiring practices described herein as biased are actually pragmatic. For example, the lab manager job represents a long-term investment of training, education, and mentorship. At what rate do female candidates drop out of these programs to get married and have children or pursue other careers? A recent study in the UK found that only 12% of female PhD candidates were even interested in working in academia. It's logical to award the job to the candidate most likely to maximize return on investment. Instead of lamenting the apparent bias, we should look at the reasons why this career track is less appealing to women and how their participation in that field can be increased organically rather than legislatively.

The preference for a male boss may also be rooted in logic, because in some industries a male boss may prove a greater career booster than a female boss. My experience was the reverse. My female bosses tended to be more ambitious and strategic, and because they recognized the same characteristics in me, they promoted me quickly.

I don't think it does women any favors to cry wolf all the time. Instead of talking about bias, we should be talking about underrepresentation and taking steps to close the gap.